User Agent -teracent-feed-processing
-
Does anyone knows some info about "teracent-feed-processing" user agent?
IP's from which user agent reside: 74.125.113.145, 74.125.113.148, 74.125.187.84 ....
In our logs, 2 out of 3 requests are made by it, causing server crash.
-
It seems that the Sudden drop in indexed pages reported in WMT might relate to some reporting issues from Google - https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/qkvudy6VqnM;context-place=topicsearchin/webmasters/sitemap|sort:date
-
Since "teracent-feed-processing" didn't followed the rules in robots.txt, we had to hard-block it. If server detects the user agent beeing "teracent-feed-processing" it will drop the connection: _ (104) Connection reset by peer_
-
Well it isn't Googlebot and it isn't one I have come across before. Don't forget that any user agent can be spoofed very easily so I wouldn't worry about blocking it.
**Should I assume that the drop in reported indexed pages is a result of blocking the teracent-feed-processing user agent? **
I really don't think that this is Google. The only one they have is Googlebot, and tell you this is the one to add if you wish to block them.
Just a thought, can you share your robots.txt file just to make sure pages aren't being unintentionally blocked?
-Andy
-
It seems that "teracent-feed-processing" user agent is somehow linked to Google. If you analyse the Ip's , you'll noticed that are Google owned. Teracent company has been bought by Google in 2009.
btw - we've already blocked it, but I'm trying to figure it out what's the key role played by this user agent. We've also noticed a drastic decline in number of pages being reported in Google Webmaster Tools (half of what we used to have). Should I assume that the drop in reported indexed pages is a result of blocking the teracent-feed-processing user agent?
-
It sounds like your typical spammy site so I would suggest just blocking them. Add the following to the top of your robots.txt file:
**User-agent: teracent-feed-processing** **Disallow: /** However, before you go live with this, use the webmaster tools Robots.txt tester to make sure everything else still gets crawled. -Andy
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
False Soft 404s, Shadow Bans, and Old User Generated Content
What are the best ways to keep old user generated content (UGC) pages from being falsely flagged by Google as soft 404s? I have tried HTML site maps to make sure no page is an orphaned but that has not solved the problem. Could crawled currently not indexed by explained by a shadow ban from Google? I have had problems with Google removing pages from SERPs without telling me about it. It looks like a lot of content is not ranking due to its age. How can one go about refreshing UGC without changing the work of the user?
Technical SEO | | STDCarriers0 -
What's the best way for users to upload their images to my wordpress site to promote UGC
I have looked at lots of different plugins and wanted a recommendation for an easy way for patients of ours to upload pictures of them out partying and having fun and looking beautiful so future users can see the final results instead of sometimes gory or difficult to understand before and after images. I'd like to give them the opportunity to write captions (like facebook or insta posts and would offer them incentives to do so. I don't want it to be too complicated for them or have too many steps or barriers but I do want it to look nice and slick and modern. Also do you think this would have a positive impact on SEO? I was also thinking of a Q&A app where dentists could get Q&A emails and respond - i've been doing AMA sessions and they've been really successful and I would like to bring it into out site and make it native. Thanks in advance 🙂
Technical SEO | | Smileworks_Liverpool1 -
Will my SEO Affect If I Redirect existing user from homepage to dashboard?
Hi Guys, My client (SaaS company) wants to redirect all the visitors to the dashboard if they have already created an account with them. The redirection would be done at the server level using a cookie. Does the redirection (though done only if user is already registered) affect SEO rankings? They want to be double sure. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | sandeep.clickdesk0 -
Content Based on User's IP Address
Hello, A client wants us to create a page on two different sites (www.brandA.com/content and www.brandB.com/content) with similar content and serve up specific content to users based on their IP addresses. The idea is that once a user gets to the page, the content would slightly change (mainly contact information and headers) based on their location. The problem I am seeing with this is that both brandA and brandB would be different Urls so there is a chance if their both optimized for the similar terms then they would both rank and crowd up the search results (duplicate content). Have you seen something similar? What are your thoughts and/or potential solutions? Also, do you know of any sites that are currently doing something similar?
Technical SEO | | Rauxa0 -
Do user metrics really mean anything?
This is a serious question, I'd also like some advice on my experience so far with the Panda. One of my websites, http://goo.gl/tFBA4 was hit on January 19th, it wasn't a massive hit, but took us from 25,000 to 21,000 uniques per day. It survived Panda completely prior. The only thing that had changed, was an upgrade in the CMS, which caused a lot of duplicate content, i.e 56 copies of the homepage, under various URLs. These were all indexed in Google. I've heard varying views, as to whether this could trigger Panda, I believe so, but i'd appreciate your thoughts on it. There was also the above the fold update on the 19th, but we have 1 ad MAX on each page, most pages have none. I hate even having to have 1 ad. I think we can safely assume it was Panda that did the damage. Jan 18th was the first Panda refresh, since we upgraded our CMS in mid-late December. As it was nothing more than a refresh, I feel it's safe to assume, that the website was hit, due to something that had changed on the website, between the Jan 18th refresh and the one previous. So, aside from fixing the bugs in the CMS, I felt now was a good time to put a massive focus on user metrics, I worked hard and continuing to spend a lot of time, improving them. Reduced bounce rate from 50% to 30% (extremely low in the niche) Average page views from 7 to 12 Average time on site from 5 to almost 8 minutes Plus created a mobile optimised version of the site Page loading speeds slashed. Not only did the above improvements have no positive effect, traffic continued to slide and we're now close to a massive 40% loss. Btw I realise neither mobile site nor page loading speeds are user metrics. I fully appreciate that my website is image heavy and thin on text, but that is an industry wide 'issue'. It's not an issue to my users, so it shouldn't be an issue to Google. Unlike our competitors, we actively encourage our users to add descriptions to their content and provide guidelines, to assit them in doing so. We have a strong relationship with our artists, as we listen to their needs and develop the website accordingly. Most of the results in the SERPs, contain content taken from my website, without my permission or permission of the artist. Rarely do they give any credit. If user metrics are so important, why on earth has my traffic continued to slide? Do you have any advice for me, on how I can further improve my chances of recovering from this? Fortunately, despite my artists download numbers being slashed in half, they've stuck by me and the website, which speaks volumes.
Technical SEO | | seo-wanna-bs0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0